All articles in this series "On Writing and Self-Publishing" have become part of an ongoing feature called On Writing.
I’ve been waiting to write this next post for a few days because I knew my book was hanging out there for review. I had arrived at a point in writing this series that I had to put up or shut up. I’m not one to grease the skids of my success with bullshit. Either my work expresses the art and craft of which I’ve written, or I walk away knowing there is a lot more work to be done. Actually there is always more work to be done, that’s the nature of craft. But you don’t want to overwork it either. It has to preserve a natural grace.
I know my work is not perfect. It’s ragged in the way human life is, but also dignified and graceful in the way human life can be, a paradox. Perfection is a phantom construct, a killer of the human spirit. Can anybody show me perfect? It’s like saying there’s a largest number. The kids I used to teach would say, “How about a googal?” I would reply, “How about a googal plus one?”
A conception of perfect is a static model and it can’t deal with the dynamic reality of what life really is. Let’s say that’s a lot like publishing houses. Though no one would put the perfect label on them, they are certainly static models that cannot deal with the dynamic reality of life. But this is true all the way down the publishing food chain. When an agent will only look at work recommended by established writers on their client list, the process becomes self-referential and misses some new dynamic. They don’t want to work hard at sorting the field or establishing a procedure to do that, so they skim the known. I equate it to the white buffalo hunter practice of taking only the tender hump of the beast and leaving behind the heart and other vital organs to rot in the hot prairie sun. Better to take the whole thing; make shelter from it, bowstrings, clothes, a whole life. Better to be reverent toward that which gives of itself.
Article comments
1 - Elvira Black
Though i don't know a lot about book publishing, I do think that larger publishers such as (I believe) Random House do have smaller subsidiaries which focus on certain sub-genres--though again these may be mostly commercially driven. I think the internet may begin to reinvent the way books are recognized and marketed however, which may indicate a ray of hope.
2 - gypsyman
What he said!!! Yes and yes again to all that you said in this post John. Thank goodness there are writers more articulate than me to make these points, or at least to elaborate on them.
gypsyman
3 - John Spivey
Elvira-
My thought is to have a web of small independent publishers that stand by themselves, but are also connected through a larger publisher. The subsidiaries still answer to the same corporate logic and pressures as the parent.
gypsyman-thanks
js
4 - Victor Lana
This series keeps getting better and better, John. While I'm hoping things will change for the better in publishing, I think it will take a much longer time. There is hope in the online world and a new kind of publishing (that is a more equitable system) hopefully awaits.
5 - John Spivey
Victor-
Thanks for the compliment. i hope I can contribute a little in that direction.
js
6 - Mark Saleski
great as usual john. seriously.
7 - A.L. Harper
Wow very insightful piece John.
8 - John Spivey
Mark and A.L.-many thanks. seriously.
Wait till I get to the next part about the responsibilities of the reader.
9 - Mark Saleski
looking forward to it.
this is fun. i get to read about writing without adding to my poor, sagging bookshelf holding my writing about writing books.